• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs

Discussion in 'Ethics & Morality' started by Zoii, Apr 14, 2019.

  1. RestoreTheJoy

    RestoreTheJoy Well-Known Member Supporter

    +614
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Who is forcing change? Having standards is not "forcing change". People do what they want to do, no matter how good... or how depraved, until they desire to live differently.
     
  2. RestoreTheJoy

    RestoreTheJoy Well-Known Member Supporter

    +614
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Pray tell, how does one "quote evangelism". ?? I quoted an apostle speaking directly from scripture. If you don't like it, well, I didn't write it.

    As to comment that Jesus is talking only to believers...are you kidding me? There were all kinds of people there. Jesus Himself even comments that some are following them just for the miracles and the FOOD.

    After these things Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee (or Tiberias). 2 A large crowd followed Him, because they saw the signs which He was performing on those who were sick. John 6:6

    26 Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. John 6:26

    That doesn't change all the way through scripture, as evidenced by other passages, such as where Simon asks how to get the power of the Holy Spirit.

    Your reading is terribly faulty on this issue and also on the woman at the well. She accepts that he will give her living water, but she has no idea what that really means. She thinks she won't have to go to the well anymore.

    Jesus does not come to condemn but to save. On that point we agree. But you think that this is a one step process of "I accept you".

    No. It is a two step process, over and over and over in scripture, that basically says, "Come to me, all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest" AND "Go and sin no more, lest something worse befall you." Cheap grace advocates ONLY the first step.

    YES, we should be doing the works that He did - Teach, Preach, Heal, and cast out demons. He shows us exactly what we should be doing, and to reiterate it, He sends out the disciples (not even just the apostles!) in groups to do it.

    Luke 10:
    8 “When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is offered to you. 9 Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town we wipe from our feet as a warning to you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.

    13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.

    16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

    17 The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.”
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2019
  3. Jon Osterman

    Jon Osterman Well-Known Member

    720
    +460
    United Kingdom
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Any sex outside of Christian marriage.
     
  4. RestoreTheJoy

    RestoreTheJoy Well-Known Member Supporter

    +614
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married

    I don't see a distinction here that you are attempting to make. The primary message is NOT "you are going to hell". It is "Repent, for the Kingdom is near. You don't have to go that direction. There is freedom!" We are still alive. It's not set in stone who is going to hell or not; that's God's decision.

    You are suggesting that this one sin is to be spoken of differently than all others. Would you stand up and say that Jesus has complete freedom from alcohol waiting for them if they get serious and repent (not just apologize, but turn around, and go another direction)?

    If so, that's great - and in this scenario of drinking, the congregation would likely support you because it's still ok to say drunkenness is a sin. If you would do it for that destructive action that destroys lives and families and not for this other, than that's wrong. That's preferring one to another, exactly what we are told not to do.

    That man of whom you speak may well have repented. God knows, not us, because only God knows what he (or any of us) does in secret.

    And his life has probably changed dramatically and will continue to do so. It's not over until it's over.
     
  5. RestoreTheJoy

    RestoreTheJoy Well-Known Member Supporter

    +614
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Yes, he actually was, and we still read his words. His audience in that time was mostly Jews, because he started in Judea and was an itinerant preacher, preaching to whomever wished to listen. He ended up in prison for speaking against Herod and marrying his brother's wife. Herod was not a Jew. Travelers in the area of Palestine - of all faiths - shared his message widely.
     
  6. Paidiske

    Paidiske Clara bonam audax Supporter

    +12,568
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Except the tweet being discussed here was specifically and clearly giving a message of condemnation to hell. The rest wasn't there.

    No, I'm not. As a general rule, though, I would say that sin is best dealt with contextually; within a relationship where the minister and penitent are known to one another and there is trust and care.

    I'm having difficulty imagining the situation in which I would. I see alcoholism as a medical issue as much as a moral one; and while I would want to see repentance, I'd probably also be referring an alcoholic to a doctor for appropriate medical support.
     
  7. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +10,969
    Christian
    Married
    No, that is not the message. If that were the message, that would be exactly what he would have (or should have) said. Exactly that.

    Otherwise, he's sending smoke signals with no real intention of being clearly understood.

    He was not preaching the gospel, because the gospel is salvation, not condemnation.

    Condemnation is what the Adversary speaks.

    Conviction is what the Holy Spirit speaks.

    Salvation is what the Body of Christ speaks.

    Those are each separate messages.
     
  8. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +10,969
    Christian
    Married
    What scripture says specifically is:

    Before the coming of Jesus, John preached repentance and baptism to all the people of Israel.

    You're wrong.
     
  9. Zoii

    Zoii Well-Known Member

    +3,161
    Australia
    Seeker
    Single
    His employer cares what the public thinks - Now if Izzy isnt bothered about that then that's fine - He accepts that he is no longer employed. But I now see he is appealing his situation which would mean that he does care what his employer thinks.

    And you seem to be confused - Rugby Australia is NOT a church and thus not interested in what you refer to as 'God's standards'. It Modus Operandi is about maintaining a positive and successful rugby community.

    You seem to be again confused about what is tolerance - You think to stand on a platform denouncing a large proportion of our community is an exercise of tolerance - Now I understand a good number of Christians support your view, but most Australians are not interested in being told how terrible they are if they [insert list of things Christians dont like] and thus feel alienated by those spruking such messages.
     
  10. Zoii

    Zoii Well-Known Member

    +3,161
    Australia
    Seeker
    Single
    See that makes me feel sick that Christians would tell one of my lovely friends they are so terrible that that their soul will burn for eternity, simply because they had sex - and told that they are promiscuous at that. The whole notion that Christians spurn in such a way is one of the factors that forced me to change my status away from Christian.
     
  11. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +6,487
    Atheist
    Private
    Does the church have any purpose in speaking out against minority groups, as we've seen in the OP? Or is it just idle complaining?

    Here, for example, you seem to imply that these sorts of messages have a goal of changing people's thoughts and actions.
     
  12. Jon Osterman

    Jon Osterman Well-Known Member

    720
    +460
    United Kingdom
    Non-Denom
    Married
    That is just the definition of promiscuity. You can bury your head in the sand and muddle up your words however you like. It won't change the facts though.
     
  13. keith99

    keith99 sola dosis facit venenum

    +4,315
    Atheist
    Single
    No it is not.

    Definition of promiscuous

    1 : having or involving many sexual partners : not restricted to one sexual partner or few sexual partners

    It has NOTHING to do with the gender or anything else in a sexual partner, it only relates to the NUMBER of sexual partners.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  14. keith99

    keith99 sola dosis facit venenum

    +4,315
    Atheist
    Single
    If I were to tell people in this thread that they were going to hell would that be reviling them?
     
  15. Jon Osterman

    Jon Osterman Well-Known Member

    720
    +460
    United Kingdom
    Non-Denom
    Married
    It derives from the Latin promiscuus, which means indiscriminate. If you are having sex with someone who is not your spouse you are being indiscriminate in your sexual behaviour.

    I didn't say it had anything to do with gender, but since same-sex marriages aren't Christian, same-sex relations are always outside Christian marriage.
     
  16. keith99

    keith99 sola dosis facit venenum

    +4,315
    Atheist
    Single
    How many words are you going to badly misuse. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own definitions.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  17. Zoii

    Zoii Well-Known Member

    +3,161
    Australia
    Seeker
    Single
    It's interesting you say its promiscuous if its outside a Christian marriage. Does that mean if someone is NOT a Christian but is married, you still regard them as promiscuous.

    No that's not the definition. It's simply your opinion, though I acknowledge that those of conservative faiths whether Christian or Islamic or Hindu, believe similarly to you.

    My head isn't buried. I'm, having a rational discussion, and my words aren't muddled. The facts? The facts are that overwhelmingly in my country, young people will have had several partners before they opt to marry. It is not an indictment of anything negative (including promiscuity). It is merely the natural process of finding the best possible partner.
     
  18. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +10,969
    Christian
    Married
    That's actually a really sorry way to find the best possible partner.
     
  19. Paidiske

    Paidiske Clara bonam audax Supporter

    +12,568
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    For what it's worth, I don't think that's a mainstream Christian view. We would typically view (monogamous) marriages of people of other faiths as being just as much a marriage as ours.
     
  20. Jon Osterman

    Jon Osterman Well-Known Member

    720
    +460
    United Kingdom
    Non-Denom
    Married
    What is your theological reasoning behind that? Do you not think God is an integral part of marriage? When you say "mainstream Christian" are you just referring to cultural Christians? (The term "Christian" has become very muddled nowadays so it is sometimes difficult to know what it is referring to.)

    Incidentally, I regard myself as a very liberal Christian. I have no issues interacting with non-Christians and don't condemn them for their sin. How they live their lives is up to them and God, and it is my duty to treat them with love and respect. However, it is also my duty to tell the truth when asked and to hold myself to the ideals that God has set out for me. Of course, since I too am a sinner, I will always fall short, but it is essential to do one's best for the love of Christ.
     
Loading...